4. G.R. No.

46724           September 30, 1939

CRESCENCIO REYNES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
ROSALINA BARRERA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Facts:

The spouses, Vidal Reynes and Lucia R. de Reynes, were owners of lot No. 471 in Cebu. On July
23, 1922, Lucia R. de Reynes died, leaving the plaintiffs-appellees herein, Cresencio Reynes et al.,
as her heirs. Vidal then contracted, on December 15, 1923, a debt of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000)
with Pedro Malacahan. In an action subsequently brought by Malacahan against Vidal, execution
was levied on said lot No. 471 which was later sold at public auction. Vidal conveyed his right of
redemption to his brother Manuel Reynes, who thereafter redeemed the property. Subsequently, the
lot was subdivided into lot No. 471-a and 471-b, the second lot having been registered in the name
of Manuel.

Manuel conveyed Lot No. 471-b, under pacto de retro, to Rosalina Barrera who, thereafter, acquired
full ownership thereof and since then had been in continuous possession of the property. Plaintiffs-
appellees now seek to declare null and void the sale at public auction of one-half of the property in
question, which appertained to them be heirship, as well as all subsequent transfer thereof.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant’s acquisition of the property in question valid and in good faith.

Held:

Yes, it is valid. There is no question that the defendant-appellant is a purchaser of lot No. 471-b in
good faith and for a valuable consideration. There was nothing in the certificate of title of Manuel
Reynes, from whom she acquired the property, to indicate any cloud or vice in his ownership of the
property, or any encumbrance thereon. Where the subject of a judicial sale is a registered property,
the purchaser thereof is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face,
indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto.

Every applicant receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser or registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith, shall
hold the same free of all encumbrance except those noted on said certificate.

Even admitting the fact that a registration obtained by means of fraud or forgery is not valid, and
may be cancelled forthwith, yet, when a third person has acquired the property subject-matter of
such registration from the person who appears as registered owner of same, his acquisition is valid
in all respects and registration in his favor cannot be annulled or cancelled; neither can the property
be recovered by the previous owner who is deprived thereof by virtue of such fraud or forgery (De la
Cruz vs. Fabie). Defendant-appellant is hereby absolved from the complaint,